Well if you are going to require that I adress your points, I will require the same.
Doesn’t your act of argumentation imply that you recognize both your own self ownership and my self ownership. Otherwise, why are you trying to convince me? This proves the natural right of self ownership.
The existance of some other human and his belief in being the only human in the universe is irrelivant. You have already proven that you believe we are both self owners.
no
because i can
So if I am not a self owner, who owns me? And why aren’t you trying to convince them rather than me?
that would require empirical observation, depending on definitions
maybe i should
Doesn’t your act of argumentation imply that you recognize both your own self ownership and my self ownership. Otherwise, why are you trying to convince me? This proves the natural right of self ownership.
as i said, as far as i am concerned i only arbitrarily recognise your self-ownership - in another time and place, i might not have
this only “proves” (if we are accepting a wide array of other assumptions, such as that we can learn things about the universe) that both of use consider the other to have self-ownership. where that self-ownership stems from has not been proven, since it could be a product of social circumstance rather than nebulous objective truths.
The existance of some other human and his belief in being the only human in the universe is irrelivant. You have already proven that you believe we are both self owners.
since this hasn’t been proven, the automaton assumption is relevant as it is just as valid as the human nature assumption, the learning about the universe assumption, and the i’m-not-a-brain-in-a-jar assumption etc etc
the pragmatic approach to the difficulty of choosing which assumptions to discard is to use empiricism. hence austro-libertarianism, to have applicability in the real world, must empirically prove a human nature.
Cop out. You just said that I am not a selfowner even while you imply it through your actions. Ive got points on the board, you don’t, not until you can back up your position. So who owns me, and on what basis?
no i don’t. you’re evading the argument.
you’re avoiding responding to my post.
we’re getting to that.
I think you are stuck on the word empiricism. I don’t know why. As I understand it, Austrians reject empiricism in order to make predictions. The issue of rights has nothing to do with predictions at all. So maybe you can explain how using empiricism to justify rights is a problem for you.
i could, but i don’t disagree or see a need to. you have to define what you mean.
for example, using conventional austrolibertarian definitions, i choose (usually implicitly, only explicitly now because our attention is being drawn to the subject) to recognise your self-ownership because i have been raised and socialised in an environment where that right is bestowed on everyone through an arbitrary political, social and moral order.
austro-libertarians have nothing to do with empiricism in the justification of rights, it is true, but only because they base their argument around an assumption (of human nature) rather than proof of that nature
BET YOU DIDNT LEARN THAT SHIT IN YOUTUBE MISES.ORG ECON 101
Why aren’t you arguing that empiricism is required to know that argumentation has taken place? Without empiricism, there is no possibility of knowledge. I am confused what you are trying to say about the difference between empiricism and any other method.
You just said that I am not a selfowner
when i said “it depends” i meant that it depends on circumstances of time and space (if we lived in a slave society and you had been arbitrarily designated “slave” by the political, social and moral order, i would say no, you’re not a self-owner, whereas in the present order i say yes, you are)
ill be back in a sec
Why aren’t you arguing that empiricism is required to know that argumentation has taken place? Without empiricism, there is no possibility of knowledge. I am confused what you are trying to say about the difference between empiricism and any other method.
why is the burden of proof upon me to show we both exist? why can’t it be an unprovable assumption which we accept on pragmatic grounds? i certainly accept the assumption when i go about my day to day life, i bet you do too
Fine, argumentation is the pragmatic basis for natural rights. It is both unproveable and unfalsifiable, as are all other ideas, ever.
so nature isn’t the basis for natural rights?
Fine, argumentation is the pragmatic basis for natural rights. It is both unproveable and unfalsifiable, as are all other ideas, ever.
having made the assumption that we can learn things about the universe, things become provable. the three basic assumptions everyone makes outside of a lunatique asylum are 1. i exist 2. the universe exists 3. it is possible to learn things about the universe. rejecting these assumptions is called solipsism, an epistemological and metaphysical dead end which humans can’t operate in.
Austrianism does not reject empirical evidence - empiricism doesn’t mean “accepts empirical evidence”, it means “rejects all metaphysical positions as equally meaningless.” And, yes, the action axiom is a metaphysical position, so Austrianism is incompatible with empiricism.
An appeal to solipsism is hardly a slam-dunk-with-hang-time argument, so don’t get too smug just yet (after all, I can reject that someone else’s assumption and re-substitute my own… all humans act… it’s a fool’s game).
The action axiom isn’t something that Austrians are interested in persuading people to agree to. If you reject the action axiom, then Austrianism doesn’t really have anything to say to you because any Austrian argument stats with the action axiom. So, you’re free to reject it, of course, but in that case you cannot criticize Austrianism on its own grounds.
In my opinion, trying to make the case that human beings do not act purposefully is a rather tall order… but to each his own.
Clayton -
But those are assumptions about nature. How is that anything other than making nature the basis?
Austrianism does not reject empirical evidence - empiricism doesn’t mean “accepts empirical evidence”, it means “rejects all metaphysical positions as equally meaningless.” And, yes, the action axiom is a metaphysical position, so Austrianism is incompatible with empiricism.
and hence falls victim to occam’s razor since it makes one more assumption than everyone else
Isn’t that a circular dependency?
In other words, if your idea relies on Occam’s razor, in addition to other assumptions, then it is no longer the simpler idea.